I have the Maven 1.2 in Mil and have used the NX8 2.5-20x50 and 4-32x50 extensively. The Maven has been reliable for me so far (longevity compared to the NX8 remains to be seen). The Maven has a better Mil reticle and better eye box and has plenty of zoom for most hunting distances for most...
All the time. With a proper reticle illumination isn't necessary I have found (that includes hunting hardwoods at last light). Problem is, there are a lot of poor reticle designs out there.
Please explain these better ways to kill an elk than placing a good bullet exactly where it needs to go and dropping an animal in its tracks? How is it possible to be more efficient than exactly what I described?
I've owned multiple and have friends and family members that have owned multiple. I guess we are all snake-bit because I've never seen one that worked properly (ranging in lines from VX series up to Mark 5HD and everywhere in-betwen). I keep hoping maybe the Mark 4HD will be different because...
I think you'd have to measure runout and concentricity between the two techniques to see if there is any measurable difference. I've seen /heard people say the same thing. I've tried and directly compared overall group sizes between both and there wasn't any measurable difference for me...
That's exactly what I used to think. Then I tested it under timed pressure and came to a very different objective conclusion. Hence why I recommended people actually test it. How someone THINKS something will work may not be how it works out in practice. I'd encourage people to actually test...
This ^^^ is effectively what I was saying. Some may arrive at a different conclusion for themselves than I did but I suspect if people would test it out under timed pressure that many (probably most) would arrive at the same conclusion I did.